NANCY
G. EDMUNDS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
This is
a pro se habeas case brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
2254. Michigan prisoner Montez Maxwell
(“Petitioner”) was convicted of first-degree
premeditated murder, Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.316, and
possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony
Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.227b, following a joint trial
before separate juries with codefendant Victoria Lynn Solomon
in the Wayne County Circuit Court. He was sentenced to
consecutive terms of life imprisonment without the
possibility of parole and two years imprisonment on those
convictions in 2017. In his pleadings, Petitioner raises
claims concerning the sufficiency of the evidence and the
trial court's refusal to admit certain evidence. For the
reasons set forth herein, the Court denies the habeas
petition. The
Court also denies a certificate of appealability and denies
leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal.
II.
Facts and Procedural History
Petitioner's
convictions arise from the shooting death of Tyrone Delaney
in Wayne County, Michigan during the early morning hours on
June 22, 2016. The Michigan Court of Appeals described the
underlying facts, which are presumed correct on habeas
review, see 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1); Wagner
v. Smith, 581 F.3d 410, 413 (6th Cir. 2009), as follows:
Delaney fathered three of Solomon's children. Testimony
at trial explained that Solomon and Delaney had an off-and-on
relationship over a period of several years. The relationship
was abusive, and Delaney had received two misdemeanor
convictions, in 2009 and 2010, for assaulting Solomon.
Nonetheless, testimony presented at trial indicated that
Solomon frequently took all six of her children to the home
of Kalua Hudson, who is Delaney's mother, to feed and
bathe them. Solomon was comfortable leaving her children with
Hudson and her family. A few days before the murder, Solomon
had brought Delaney's children to visit with him at
Hudson's home. For reasons discussed in more detail later
in this opinion, Delaney had been absent for some time, and
had recently begun living at Hudson's home at the time of
his death.
In the afternoon of June 21, 2016, one of Delaney's
sisters, Tanysha Black (Tanysha), picked up Solomon and her
children. Plans had been made for Delaney to have his two
youngest children, approximately 1-year-old twins, stay
overnight at Hudson's home. When Tanysha brought Solomon
to Hudson's home, there was no animosity; in fact,
Solomon, Delaney, and others sat together for about half an
hour before Tanysha drove Solomon and her other children to a
restaurant. But while Solomon was at Hudson's home, she
asked Tanysha to retrieve Solomon's purse. Solomon
explained that she had a handgun in her purse, and did not
want the children to find it. Solomon did not explain why she
had the gun with her. Tanysha retrieved the purse and saw the
gun, which she described as a black and chrome .38 caliber
handgun.
During the evening and into the night, Solomon and Delaney
argued via telephone and text message. It appears that the
primary issue was Delaney's complaint that Solomon did
not provide enough diapers for the children when
she dropped them off with him. Eventually, Solomon grew
frustrated and demanded that her children be returned to her.
Delaney refused, explaining that it was too late at night for
Solomon to get the children, who were asleep. Solomon was not
satisfied, and began calling friends and family members,
looking for someone to drive her to Hudson's home. During
these calls, Solomon began threatening to kill Delaney if he
did not return the children.
At the time, Solomon was dating and living with Maxwell.
Using information regarding what towers their respective
cellular telephones were interacting with during the relevant
timeframe, it appears that Solomon and Maxwell traveled to
Hudson's home between 1:00 a.m. and 1:30 a.m. on June 22,
2016. Tameka Black (Tameka), another of Delaney's
siblings, was at Hudson's home because Delaney had asked
her to bring diapers. Tameka explained that she saw Delaney
walk out of the home and head in an unexpected direction.
This drew Tameka outside, who saw that Solomon was standing
outside the home.
Delaney and Solomon had a verbal argument over the children.
During this argument, Solomon spat on Delaney, and Delaney
slapped Solomon. Hudson was called outside, and was seemingly
able to calm the situation to some extent. But as Delaney was
beginning to walk away, Solomon made a threat, stating,
“I'm going to get somebody to shoot you.”
Solomon took her cellular telephone out and said something
that went unheard by the witnesses. However, Delaney
responded by stating, “Oh, b****, you're still
throwing threats at me.” He approached Solomon and
slapped her a second time. Hudson again intervened, however,
telling Delaney to stop, which he did.
According to Tameka, Solomon then began backing away from
Delaney, seemingly leading him toward the nearby
intersection. Delaney followed Solomon. Solomon suddenly
looked to her right, and at that point, Maxwell emerged from
behind a group of bushes. He was dressed all in black, and
had a gun drawn. He ran toward Delaney, reached around
Hudson, and fired. Delaney pushed Hudson away and tried to
retreat, but tripped and fell while running. Maxwell then
continued firing bullets into Delaney, who was on the ground,
while Hudson stood by, imploring Maxwell to stop. Solomon
stood by and did not intervene. Delaney died at the scene. An
autopsy found nine bullets inside his body, and wounds to his
face, neck, shoulder, arm, chest, back, hand, and foot. A gun
matching the description of the one seen earlier in
Solomon's purse was found discarded at the scene of the
murder. The gun had no live rounds of ammunition left.
Solomon was arrested at the scene. Maxwell fled, but turned
himself into police later that day, and admitted to shooting
Delaney. Maxwell claimed that he shot Delaney because Delaney
was fighting with Solomon, and Maxwell
was aware that Delaney had “beat her into a coma
before.”3 Maxwell also stated that there were “a
bunch of other people there and they started fighting with me
too. I got a gun and shot [Delaney]. I was scared and took
off running.” Maxwell explained that he left the gun he
used at the scene.
People v. Maxwell, No. 337905, 2018 WL 6184913, *1-2
(Mich. Ct. App. Nov. 27, 2018) (unpublished).
Following
his convictions and sentencing, Petitioner filed an appeal of
right with the Michigan Court of Appeals essentially raising
the same claims presented on habeas review. The court denied
relief on those claims and affirmed his convictions.
Id. at pp. 2-6. Petitioner filed an application for
leave to appeal with the Michigan Supreme Court, which was
denied in a standard order. People v. Maxwell, 503
Mich. 1020, 925 N.W.2d 878 (2019).
Petitioner
thereafter filed his federal habeas petition raising the
following claims:
I. There was insufficient evidence to convict him of
first-degree premeditated murder and felony firearm because
he acted in lawful self-defense of another.
II. The trial court violated his due process rights by
refusing to allow defense counsel to cross-examine (i.e.
admit evidence) about Tyrone Delaney just getting out of
prison.
Respondent
filed an answer to the habeas petition contending that it
should be denied because the second claim is procedurally
defaulted in part and both claims lack merit.
The
Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996
(“AEDPA”), codified at 28 U.S.C. § 2241
et seq., sets forth the standard of review that
federal courts must use when considering habeas petitions
brought by prisoners challenging their state court
convictions. The AEDPA provides in relevant part:
An application for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a
person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court
shall not be granted with respect to any claim that was
adjudicated on the merits in State court proceedings unless
the adjudication of the claim-
(1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved
an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal
law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States;
or
(2) resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable
determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented
in the State court proceeding.
28 U.S.C. §2254(d) (1996).
“A
state court's decision is ‘contrary to'
clearly established law if it ‘applies a rule that
contradicts the governing law set forth in [Supreme Court
cases]' or if it ‘confronts a set of facts that are
materially indistinguishable from a decision of [the Supreme]
Court and nevertheless arrives at a result different from
[that] precedent.'” Mitchell v. Esparza,
540 U.S. 12, 15-16 (2003) (per curiam) (quoting Williams
v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 405-06 (2000)); see also
Bell v. Cone, 535 U.S. 685, 694 (2002). “[T]he
‘unreasonable application' prong of §
2254(d)(1) permits a federal habeas court to ‘grant the
writ if the state court identifies the correct governing
legal principle from [the Supreme] Court but unreasonably
applies that principle to the facts of petitioner's
case.” Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510, 520
(2003) (quoting Williams, 529 U.S. at 413); see
also Bell, 535 U.S. at 694. However, “[i]n order
for a federal court find a state court's application of
[Supreme Court] precedent ‘unreasonable,' the state
court's decision must have...
